SCOTUS rules on citizenship census question and political gerrymandering
Several SCOTUS decisions came down today. I got somewhat of a late start, and have less time than I’d hoped to delve into them in any detail, so I’ll refer you to the following:
Court punts for now on the citizenship question:
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision.
There were a great many parts to this decision, with different concurring and dissenting justices. So it’s a bit difficult to sort out; read those two links if you’re interested in the details. But the gist of it seems to be that a citizenship question on the census would be okay if the motives for including it were pure rather than political.
If that’s a correct interpretation on my part, it seems to be a somewhat troubling extension of a recent tendency of quite a few courts lately to elevate motives over process.
This ruling also means that as a practical matter it would be difficult to get the question on the 2020 census even if the Court later rules in favor of it, because the forms must be printed soon.
I can also add, from having done some genealogy research using censuses, that this question was long a staple of census questionnaires.
One more big ruling today—actually, a potentially more influential one—from SCOTUS involved politically partisan gerrymandering. You can find some of the details here:
The Supreme Court issued a decision today that could have a significant and long-term effect on elections and legislatures across the country. By a vote of 5-4, the justices ruled that courts should stay out of disputes over partisan gerrymandering – that is, allegations that redistricting maps were drawn to favor one political party at another’s expense. The practice of partisan gerrymandering may be distasteful, the court concluded, but it is a problem that politicians and the political process, rather than courts, should solve.
The lower court cases are to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
“The judgments of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland are vacated, and the cases are remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
This is a sweeping rejection well beyond what would have occurred with a substantive evaluation of partisan gerrymandering. There will be no wiggle room for district court judges to try to get involved somehow. For better or worse, partisan gerrymandering is subject to the partisan political process, not the sometimes seemingly partisan judicial process.
This isn’t just saying that SCOTUS can’t rule on the fairness of any particular case of political gerrymandering; it’s saying that district courts can’t rule on it.
And what about state appeals courts? Remember Pennsylvania? See this if you don’t. That ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court probably resulted in quite a few more Democrats being elected to the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania than would have otherwise been the case without court interference.
But the present SCOTUS ruling can’t go back and undo it. The present ruling applies to the cases it was ruling on today, and to future cases.
This SCOTUS ruling can cut either way, of course, in the political sense. Sometimes gerrymandering is done to favor Republicans, sometimes Democrats. It depends on who’s in control of the process at the time in a particular state.
But the courts won’t be able to have much say in the matter—at least, for political gerrymandering. I am pretty sure, however, that if it’s done to favor one race or another, rather than one party or another, the courts will still be able to be involved. And of course, race can be highly correlated with political affiliation, particularly for minorities.
On gerrymandering: This is good for us here. Democrats, who of course gerrymandered like crazy when they had control for more than a hundred years, tried to use the courts to negate gerrymandering now that they’re the minority. They just lost.
On the census: Throwing out government initiatives which are perfectly legal because they don’t like the motivation is outrageous.
A total BS ruling on both counts.
Drawing up voting districts based solely or even primarily upon partisan concerns is inherently discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.
A national census that fails to accurately count the number of citizens is inherently flawed and defeats the primary purpose of the census. But then that’s the Left’s point, they are adamently opposed to an accurate census.
The conservative judges who signed on to these rulings can’t see the forest for the trees. When legal minutia is allowed to overrule plain common sense, reason lies buried. It doesn’t matter what the Secretary’s motivation might be, as a census must make a good faith effort to be accurate or it becomes a travesty.
Congressman Chip Roy says “@realDonaldTrump should say ‘I’m putting the question on the census because it should be on there and for no other reason. End of story.’ ”
Seems reasonable to me too. Just do it, then let the chips fall where they may (ok, sorry for that. Couldn’t resist.)
“But the gist of it seems to be that a citizenship question on the census would be okay if the motives for including it were pure rather than political.
If that’s a correct interpretation on my part, it seems to be a somewhat troubling extension of a recent tendency of quite a few courts lately to elevate motives over process.” — Neo
I skimmed a couple other articles and this was not mentioned. It seems to be a recurring theme with judges weighing in on the Trump Whitehouse. Adding a little of my own spin: Because of the judge’s hatred for the man Trump, they will project that hatred onto a psychoanalytically interpreted motive, or a twisting of an off-hand campaign comment, that somehow always comes around to racism or persecution.
Plus, even if their imputed motives were accurate, in many (or all?) cases it simply doesn’t have legal bearing. Add that to the fact that Stevens (and others?) feel that they should look towards international law or the EU Parliament when rendering their decisions. Makes my blood boil.
Here’s David French on the Whitehouse’s motives and “chaos.” Do I detect a hint of “We told you so” from the NRO clan?
Over the last two years Republican party officials have been crowing about how, under the Obama Administration and due to its’ actions, Republicans have picked up more than a thousand state offices, and taken control of a number of statehouses, with Republicans now controlling far more Statehouses than they previously had.
If this boast is true, I’d think that–their ability to gerrymander now unleashed–the Republicans in control of these statehouses now have a much greater chance of maintaining their control.
On the Census question, asking about your citizenship has been a standard quesition on many decennial censuses.
Moreover, as I understand it, ascertaining just how many actual citizens are in each State is one of the central purposes of the Census.
This, since that total determines the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives–lose citizen population and the number of Representatives your State is entitled to in the House decreases and, thus, your voting power diminishes, gain citizens in your State, and your voting power in the House increases.
As I understand it, that number of total citizens number also performs another key function, because that number is used to calculate just how much Federal aid your State is entitled to receive.
Given just these two critical functions alone, how anyone could argue that this citizenship question should not be included in the Census is beyond me.
One commentary that I’ve read indicated that the justices voted as the did, because they were not sure of the “purity” of the motives of the Trump Administration officials for wanting this question to be included the Census.
If this is, indeed, some Justice’s reasoning, this is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.
This sounds much more like a theological debate or a psychological inquiry, rather than an analysis based on the Law.
What the hell are they smoking over there at the Court?
Snow on Pine on June 27, 2019 at 9:01 pm said:
“This sounds much more like a theological debate or a psychological inquiry, rather than an analysis based on the Law.”
* * *
So, par for the Court?
Neo’s post about Pennsylvania’s redistricting by the court linked to a Federalist post that says something important:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/23/pennsylvania-supreme-court-pulls-stunning-coup-in-map-drawing-stunt/
On the gerrymandering decision, I thought this analysis was interesting (although it’s confusingly written) — he says it’s a major victory for the right because it keeps these decisions in the hands of each state, rather than making it a federal issue:
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/supreme-court-bad-day-for-everyone-especially-roberts/
On the citizenship question, I am definitely missing something. I thought the census gathered data on the citizenry. I wouldn’t expect any of the questions to apply to, say, guest workers–wouldn’t they be tracked under some separate program, the one that regulates who can be here under the various visas, etc.? Someone said the left doesn’t want us to know how many non-citizens are receiving benefits. Isn’t that data available elsewhere? And why does anyone think the census is the best way to gather data about any of these issues, isn’t it extremely easy to lie on the form? I really don’t get it.
Watched part of the second Democrat debate until I couldn’t stand it anymore–like a bunch of noisy chickens squabbling over some feed–and turned off the TV.
Bernie was in full angry old crank mode, and I pictured him wearing one of those worker’s flat caps that Lenin used to be pictured in, ranting and flailing his arms around in a smoky union hall somewhere, as he screeched “workers of the world unite.”
But I did notice that miracles had been at work among some of the candidates, Bernie included.
Thus, while spending his time being a red-faced, ranting, full bore Socialist, railing against the “rich,” Bernie has somehow managed to accumulate three houses, his last and most recent acquisition, a “beachfront vacation home.”
Then there is “lunch-box” Joe Biden, who also lives in a very nice multi-million dollar waterfront home, this one in a several acre compound in Delaware. These days, he don’t much like the “rich” either.
Joe’s sons have been extremely lucky, as well, one son–despite having no training or expertise in this area–landing a $50,000 dollar a month gig on the board of a Ukrainian Energy company. Not only that, but, miraculously also receiving a $1.5 Billion dollar investment by the state Bank of China in a stock fund he runs, this just days after an “official” trip by Biden and his son to China.
They musta been praying awful hard.
Then, there is Elizabeth Warren–another ranter against those evil, disgusting, filthy rich–who, to hear her tell it, grew up sorta dirt poor and, yet, she somehow became an American Indian, and as a “woman of color” got better and better faculty positions, University of Texas to University of Pennsylvania, until she ended up in a tenured position at Harvard.
Warren reportedly also lives in a multi-million dollar house, and miracle of miracles, somewhere along the way she somehow lost her Indian blood since now, at Harvard, she is no longer listed or touted–as she was in the past by that august University–as an American Indian.
Being a “public servant” and ranting against the evil rich can, it seems, make you rich!
Whatta country!
Snow on Pine
You should work for Project Veritas with investigation instincts like that, son.
Bernie, I note, says that his scheme to give everyone–including illegal aliens and other non-citizens–free medical care, free education, hell, free everything is, according to his ” plans,” “fully paid for,” as he admits that, yes, taxes would rise for the middle class.
All of the candidates were throwing around all sorts of statistics these last two nights, and all sorts of “Plans.”
Does anyone actually believe any of these statistics are objectively gathered and accurate, are really true?
Does anyone actually believe that any of these candidate’s supposed “Plans” will operate as they say they will, and deliver the results they are promising they will deliver, as they massively implement “fundamental transformations” in our government, economy, and society?
You do remember, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your Plan, you can keep your Plan,” and how Obamacare was going to save each family “an average of $2,400 dollars a year,” don’t you?
You do remember the video of Obamacare architect Johnathan Gruber sneering and boasting about how the ignorance and gullibility of the voters, and the deliberately impenetrable and tortured language and interpretations of the Obamacare bill, made it possible for the Obama Administration to get Obamacare made into law?
Together, the Democrat candidates these last two nights just built a huge, steaming, stinking pile of BS, created castles in the air, built for the gullible, delivered, glittering, empty promises-all too soon conveniently forgotten.
As someone commented “anger, resentment, and envy” seemed to be the attitude and the theme of the candidates, and their statements, during these two nights of Democrat candidate debates, as they all marched towards Socialism.
To quote Churchill, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
One word, “Venezuela.”
The trojan horse has arrived m w